There are few people I would advise to actually wear a tin foil helmet. However, JHJ is on that short list.

Aye, wouldn’t want my brain power leaking out 😉

Relevance of my schooling?

Also not a military school per se, paid for out of the MOD budget rather than the DfE but no other involvement.

But yes, there were a couple of kids with dads in the SAS. Again, relevance?

It is the only school in the UK managed and funded by the Ministry of Defence

Patron: Duke of Edinburgh

😀

Yeah and? The family of the patron of my school had a massive hand in one of the biggest domestic terrorism plots – failed and I’m sure you have a theory on how only Fawkes was the one we remember…

Good grief.

The Queen is head of the UK’s armed forces. For (literally) hundreds of years and by unvarying convention, the Monarch’s functions as commander-in-chief have been exercised through the Prime Minister.

To put it another way: the Queen does not control the armed forces, the government does. As you would expect.

The amendments to the Freedom of Information Act do not mean that the Queen has suddenly decided to abandon a constitutional convention that has been there (literally) since the British lost the American war of independence. If she had, we couldn’t write to her and make her tell us, but someone would have said something. Probably the Prime Minister, the secretary of state for defence or the chief of defence staff…

Who told you that?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/15/queen-veto-war-powers_n_2477422.html

The Queen also vetoed entirely a private member’s Bill, the Military Actions Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill 1999, that would have transfered the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to Parliament

It is widely assumed that the royal prerogative, the authority to declare war, rests now with the prime minister rather than the Queen herself.

However, these documents raise questions about how much power the monarch still has over the elected government of the day.

Lib Dem MP Julian Huppert said the fact there had been a “fight to to keep this quiet” showed the significance of the Whitehall document.

“It’s quite concerning there is wider influence, and secretive influence, of the monarchy in these things than had previously been revealed,” he told The Huffington Post UK.

And he said he was particularly concerned about the revelation the Queen had fought to keep parliament from gaining the power to authorise, or block, military action.

“The power to go to war is an incredibly important thing,” he said. “It’s important to bring the country on side and to do things in a clear way and leave the choice up to parliament.

and who’s government is it?

Again, I’m still not seeing your point WRT my schooling. Are you saying I’m somehow ‘one of them’? Because if I am someone didn’t get the memo further up.

And you still haven’t addressed the issue of how a Fiat Uno was supposed to run a Mercedes off the road.

Right. So the Queen veto’ed an important change to the country’s constitutional conventions (which was not the policy of the government) that transferred an executive prerogative into a legislative one. Why does that strike anyone as surprising?

The constitutional convention that the Queen does not personally command the army or declare war remains unchanged.

and who’s government is it?

You tell me. You are presumably aware of how most sheeple think it is formed, but I am not privy to the deeper secrets of the lizards.

Why don’t you start with asking when was the last time the Queen sacked “her” Prime Minister?

So the veto was about changing something that in practice means sweet FA. In effect the government goes to the Head of State for sign off rather than the HoS declares war. Unless there is a mass conspiracy where the Queen invaded Poland or something we all forgot about. Perhaps an emergency sanity check in event of a mad rush of blood in parliament is a good thing.

From your link:

A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said: “It is a long established convention that the Queen is asked by parliament to provide consent to those bills which parliament has decided would affect crown interests. The sovereign has not refused to consent to any bill affecting crown interests unless advised to do so by ministers.

So when a private member’s bill was put forward preventing the Prime Minster from declaring war without parliamentary approval, on the Queen’s account, she was asked to veto the legislation by the Prime Minister.

Admittedly, it was shabby of the government to get the bill stopped without publicly whipping a vote against it, but that’s about as deep as the roots of the conspiracy go.

Unless there is a mass conspiracy where the Queen invaded Poland or something we all forgot about.

Well you have obviously forgotten about World War 1. That was a big family feud in which three cousins, King George V, Kaiser Wilhelm II, and Tsar Nicholas II, had a bit of a barney and declared war on each other.

I think it started along the lines of “oh yeah? …… you and whose army?”. Or maybe it was “how many armies have you got mush?”. Can’t remember. And to be fair I have never met anyone who actually knows how WW1 started – a classic family feud.

Mock JHJ if you will, but he’s definitely got a point. I’d say.

Jive if you actually read your own links they do in fact answer your questions . by links I mean the ones to actual sources of information not the lizard manifestos . The crown is the state not the individual Liz . the crown prerogative to declare war is considered quite important by the executive for good and obvious reason . so when a bill was put forward to replace a quick and efficient means of responding to developing and urgent risks with a slow and cumbersome one the executive got the embodiment of state power to veto it . if anything that shows that Liz is controlled by the pm not visa versa. De Smith wrote a fairly basic primer on constitional law you might want to read all of it but I’m afraid it is not available on you tube.

I thought WWI was started because of these guys??

Wow JHJ is right here’s the queen controlling a NZ haxxor

Your paedo cover ups etc I have always thought no smoke etc… But this is a bit way out there for me.

BigDummy – Member
…Why don’t you start with asking when was the last time the Queen sacked “her” Prime Minister?

er, 11 November 1975.

True-ish. I always forget about Australia. However, Australia has had a written constitution since 1900, hasn’t it? So the issue of which branch of government can do what has been far better defined than in the UK.

The problem in the UK is that if you really, really don’t think that constitutional convention is almost constitutional law (as JHJ doesn’t) then you can decide that the lizards have the whole thing stitched up.

🙂

Ernie, you’d better be trolling as well. If you really think WW1 was caused by three cousins as individuals having a tiff!

Is the Governor General of Australia acting on the written advise of the Australian high court really the Queen though rather than simply the guardian of the Australian constitution. For Jives world view to be confirmed surely Liz would have had to do the deed on a whim rather than the G.G. do it to resolve a long running crisis .

😆 at the banned documentary available in full on YouTube

These lizards are *****

jhj – do you think there’s evidence for time-travellers from our future visiting us and interfering in the affairs of the NWO?

do you think there’s evidence for time-travellers from our future visiting us and interfering in the affairs of the NWO?

That doesn’t sound very likely.

Get a grip Woppit

If you really think WW1 was caused by three cousins as individuals having a tiff!

Well obviously not a just as individuals – they had armies to back them up 🙄

Which explains why cousin George won and cousins Wilhelm and Nicolas didn’t – George had more armies. Which gets back to JHJ point.

ivehoneyjive – Member
Get a grip Woppit

Really? other people can’t have wacky mad beliefs.

Is the Governor General of Australia acting on the written advise of the Australian high court really the Queen though rather than simply the guardian of the Australian constitution. For Jives world view to be confirmed surely Liz would have had to do the deed on a whim rather than the G.G. do it to resolve a long running crisis .

That’s a very good question…

Of course, the Queen doesn’t exercise absolute power, else she’d create too much tension in the ranks and be toppled from within, however, as I read it, all governments within the Commonwealth Realms, British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies are ultimately acting on the Queens behalf and subject to her (and to some extent the Privy Council’s) rule

Really? other people can’t have wacky mad beliefs.

Oops, my bad, as you were Woppit

😀

The 1975 Australian constitutional crisis (often known simply as “the Dismissal”) has been described as the greatest political and constitutional crisis in Australian history. It culminated on 11 November 1975 with the dismissal from office of the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), by Governor-General Sir John Kerr, who then appointed the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Fraser, as caretaker Prime Minister.

Whitlam’s Labor government had been elected in 1972 with a small majority in the House of Representatives, but with the Opposition controlling the Senate. Another election in 1974 resulted in little change. While the Whitlam Government introduced many new policies and programs, it was also rocked by scandals and political miscalculations. In October 1975, the Opposition used its control of the Senate to defer passage of appropriation bills, which finance governmental operations and which had been passed by the House of Representatives. The Opposition stated that they would continue to do so unless Whitlam called an election for the House of Representatives and urged Kerr to dismiss Whitlam unless he agreed to their demand. Whitlam believed that Kerr would not dismiss him, and Kerr did nothing to disabuse Whitlam of this notion.

On 11 November 1975, Whitlam intended to call a half-Senate election in an attempt to break the deadlock. When he went to seek Kerr’s approval of the election, Kerr instead dismissed him as Prime Minister and shortly thereafter installed Fraser in his place. Acting quickly before all ALP parliamentarians became aware of the change of government, Fraser and his allies were able to secure passage of the appropriation bills, and Kerr dissolved Parliament for a double dissolution election. Fraser and his government were returned with a massive majority.

The events of the Dismissal led to only minor constitutional change. The Senate retained its power to block supply, and the Governor-General the power to dismiss the Government. However, those powers have not been exercised again. Kerr was widely criticised by ALP supporters for his actions, resigned early as Governor-General, and lived much of his remaining life abroad. Though Whitlam and Fraser later reconciled, Kerr, who died in 1991, continues to be reviled in some quarters.

Of course, the Queen doesn’t exercise absolute power, else she’d create too much tension in the ranks and be toppled from within, however,

The however being the assumption that the Queen had anything to do with it, it’s part of the Australian constitutional powers that allowed it to happen based on the situation on the ground.

I’m sure if you google hard enough you will find a pic of Rolf, Jimmie and couple of Oz politicians to prove it all,

Oops, my bad, as you were Woppit

I didn’t say I believed it. I asked if you thought there was any evidence for it.

Not that I know of… what have you got? 😉

Just to take the example of the British Overseas Territories (to which you helpfully provided a link to a Wikipedia list).

The Head of State is the British Monarch. As the Wiki article makes clear, the Crown’s authority is exercised through a Governor. The Governor is formally appointed by the Monarch, in practice always on the advice of ministers of the government (the junior minister for boring foreign jobs, I suspect).

To take an example of an overseas territory which has had to be virtually run from London recently, the Governor of Turks & Caicos (with a population smaller than that of Cleethorpes and vital natural resources including money-laundering and some grilled fish) has recently had to deal with the fact that the territory was bankrupt and governed by a corrupt cabal of idiots. The British Government agreed the territory’s budget this week.

Her Majesty had nothing to do with any of this. The Turks & Caicos aren’t any use, and she doesn’t care.

Bermuda is less useless, so the British government just leaves it to get on with it.

Her Majesty had nothing to do with any of this. The Turks & Caicos aren’t any use, and she doesn’t care.

You would think that, until of course you realise that one of the biggest problems in the Turks and Caicos is Alien Lizards!

Makes you think, eh!

Seems like a bit much conjecture there BigDummy…

(the junior minister for boring foreign jobs, I suspect)

In this instance:

Her Majesty had nothing to do with any of this

How do you know?

Strangely enough both Turks & Caicos and Bermuda are on this list of non transparent Tax Havens under the Crown’s rule:

http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/faq/britishconnection

Merc S Class W140 = 2400kg
Fiat uno = 840kg

There exists IMO a correlation between the weight of these two cars and the weight of JHJ’s theory’s of how the world works versus the rest.

Still it’s all quite entertaining stuff – a bit like Charlie Brooker’s Black Mirror but with the reality element removed.

PS – who’s for a Game of Risk at Buck House this weekend?

Still it’s all quite entertaining stuff – a bit like Charlie Brooker’s Black Mirror but with the reality element removed.

jhj, earlier:

Again, I’m still not seeing your point WRT my schooling. Are you saying I’m somehow ‘one of them’? Because if I am someone didn’t get the memo further up.

Apologies if it comes across as an attack on you, like the vast majority of folk on here, you seem pretty cool; given the topic of the thread, I mainly brought it up to highlight the intrinsic links between Royalty and the Military:

It is the only school in the UK managed and funded by the Ministry of Defence

Patron: Duke of Edinburgh

As for this:

And you still haven’t addressed the issue of how a Fiat Uno was supposed to run a Mercedes off the road.

Who’s to know if it did or if it didn’t, however, despite the vast difference in unladen weight, it’s far from impossible…

In a long tussle, the Merc would undoubtedly wrestle the Uno off the road, but a single well timed impact…

On top of that, you have to remember the Uno is but one of the unanswered questions

On top of that, you have to remember the Uno is but one of the unanswered questions

Like ‘Why would they murder Diana? ‘

PS – who’s for a Game of Risk at Buck House this weekend?

Bagsy the the Five Eyes Alliance, I reckon given all the instability surrounding Iran at the mo (after wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) it should be an easy target:

Tell you what mind, handy that the Afghan Opium Yield is at record levels since allied invasion… wonder who profits?

I recall reading a responce from a NZ politician who said something like, “If our security services weren’t spying on people I’d ask why they where not doing their job. That’s what they are paid to do.”

Tell you what mind, handy that the Afghan Opium Yield is at record levels since allied invasion… wonder who profits?

Tasmania with 40% of the world pharma opiate crop grown here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_Alkaloids

Honestly, Really do you want to go to McDonalds and clutch at some straws in the dispenser? The Head of State is the ceremonial figure head of the armed forces, government and the f’in dinner ladies. It’s not a conspiracy it’s just how it is

I recall reading a responce from a NZ politician who said something like, “If our security services weren’t spying on people I’d ask why they where not doing their job. That’s what they are paid to do.”

Well it seems the NZ Prime Minister John Key said he and the head of GCSB would resign if the spy agency were found to have conducted mass surveillance.